SpaceX successfully launches its first attempt at geosynchronous orbit

After three tries, the satellite is in orbit, awaiting further maneuvers.

Early this evening in Florida, space transport company SpaceX successfully launched its Falcon 9 rocket on a trajectory to place a satellite in geosynchronous orbit. The success comes on the third attempt, with one of the previous tries getting as far as engine ignition before shutting down. If the remaining maneuvers are completed successfully, the launch will place a commercial communications satellite into a geosynchronous orbit that will keep it positioned above Asia—and represent the first launch of its type for SpaceX.

The company had been attempting to hit this milestone for about a week. During the first launch window, two different anomalous readings from on-board sensors caused the controllers to stop the countdown, restart it, and stop it again before running out of time. In the second, the Falcon 9 got as far as firing its engines—with less than a second to liftoff—before computers sensed insufficient power and shut everything down.

The problem in that case was with the small rocket motor used to drive the pump that pushes fuel into the primary engine (a device called a gas generator). Once everything had cooled off, the company engineers cleaned eight of the gas generators in place and replaced the ninth. That seemed to do the trick, as the countdown went off without a hitch this evening.

The launch placed the payload and second stage engine in a parking orbit, from which they'll need to complete additional maneuvers before reaching a geosynchronous orbit. If those work successfully, it will mark a major step for the company, as geosynchronous capabilities open up a lot of business opportunities for it—having a satellite parked over a single point on Earth has a lot of commercial value.

I welcome a new launch provider - especially if they can launch to GTO. But I'm holding my breath until we start to get more data on the return of the first stage rockets - are they usable, what condition the rockets are in, etc.

If they can get the first stages back to earth and then launch them a few more times without issues, it will be a huge win and they'll earn the title of "disruptive". For now, they're "just" a successful launch company.

a geosynchronous orbit that will keep it positioned above Asia... During the first launch window, two different anomalous readings from on-board sensors caused the controllers to stop the countdown, restart it, and stop it again before running out of time.

Launch window? What, they had to wait until Asia was in the right position?

Space. Right now it's basically a government playground; SpaceX (and eventually others) promise to introduce competition into the market, which will drive development of launch tech to reduce the mass-cost of launches.

This is step, oh, 3 or so in being able to vacation in orbit. (First was "we successfully put stuff in space", second was "we successfully littered in orbit", third is "it's way less expensive to litter in orbit". Four is "it's reasonable for anyone to litter in orbit", and five is "littering in orbit is a fine of up to $5,000 and up to 2 years in prison".)

a geosynchronous orbit that will keep it positioned above Asia... During the first launch window, two different anomalous readings from on-board sensors caused the controllers to stop the countdown, restart it, and stop it again before running out of time.

Launch window? What, they had to wait until Asia was in the right position?

Launch window? What, they had to wait until Asia was in the right position?

They wait until the Sun is in position so the SES satellite has light on its solar panels as soon as it detaches from Falcon 9. This reduces strain on the satellite batteries.

Yep. The "Asia in the right position" would be of concern if this launch were a direct injection into a geostationary transfer orbit. But it isn't. This satellite is in a lower parking orbit and it will take a number of maneuvers to get to geostationary. Those additional maneuvers will need to be timed correctly so satellite attains geo over Asia.

What is really impressive here is how resilient the design is. In a previous launch they made orbit despite one booster shutting down. In this case they could clean and replace parts in situ and resume countdown.This is a good thing.

It does not feel the same when space travel is just another commercial venture.

At the same time I love the fact that I can cheaply fly anywhere in the world within a day, it's not an event for the rich and famous where you dress up nicely for it.

NASA still puts satelittes up all the time and barely anyone bats and eyelid (the NSA does it all the time and barely anyone knows about it). But there are bigger steps to take. I'll be struggling to hold back a tear when we finally get a foot on Mars, but only because it represents the continuing of finding something new, the old becoming mundane simply marks the progress that's happening to get to those new things.

Space. Right now it's basically a government playground; SpaceX (and eventually others) promise to introduce competition into the market, which will drive development of launch tech to reduce the mass-cost of launches.

ESA and Russian Federal Space Agency have been able and willing to launch anything including your beat up VW beetle into space if you felt like paying for it on pure commercial terms and pricing.

Space. Right now it's basically a government playground; SpaceX (and eventually others) promise to introduce competition into the market, which will drive development of launch tech to reduce the mass-cost of launches.

ESA and Russian Federal Space Agency have been able and willing to launch anything including your beat up VW beetle into space if you felt like paying for it on pure commercial terms and pricing.

The big deal here is that SpaceX will charge you much less per launch than ESA, Russia, or ULA will.

SpaceX has ripped the commercial launch market into pieces. They have already soaked up most of the satellite market for the payload classes they can launch. Just look at their launch manifest for the coming years, they have contracts from all over the world and loads of them.

Space. Right now it's basically a government playground; SpaceX (and eventually others) promise to introduce competition into the market, which will drive development of launch tech to reduce the mass-cost of launches.

ESA and Russian Federal Space Agency have been able and willing to launch anything including your beat up VW beetle into space if you felt like paying for it on pure commercial terms and pricing.

SpaceX has ripped the commercial launch market into pieces. They have already soaked up most of the satellite market for the payload classes they can launch. Just look at their launch manifest for the coming years, they have contracts from all over the world and loads of them.

Here's the number of satellites on the SpaceX manifest for upcoming years:2014: 82015:102016: 32017: 3

Here's the scheduled number of satellite/spacecraft launches for Roscosmos: 2014: 31 + 4 delayed from this year (doesn't include a long list of postponed missions)2015: 202016: 11

In both cases I've excluded resupply missions to the ISS and also excluded a couple of experimental Roscosmos missions. Any assertion that SpaceX has 'soaked up most of the satellite market' depends on a lot of fancy footwork to obscure the fact that RC will be putting at least four times as many commercial satellites into space. SpaceX has had a good start, and they're a useful addition to the options for getting into space. But they still lag far behind the major, state-controlled players in terms of their impact on the market. It's going to be many years before they get anywhere near 'ripping the commercial market into pieces'.

Roscosmos and the other government operated entities don't have to operate at a break-even or at a profit. They are at the most basic level essentially jobs programs for high tech engineers and the various supporting companies and entities reliant on launches whether military or commercial. NASA has and is supporting the Russian space program at least in part to keep flying astronauts/cosmonauts to the ISS. If NASA and the ESA hadn't starting paying for seats in the Soyuz, the Russian non-military space program and its participation in the ISS would have shutdown.

I welcome SpaceX's efforts and the other companies because it's time for LEO and Lunar orbit to become economic arenas. Exploration can happen still and NASA and the other government agencies here and in Europe and Asia can still operate on the frontiers. Think of the commercial companies as the wagon-crafters and wheelwrights for the next frontier. The US west had commercial interests building the "ships" that moved west, it wasn't the US government building all the wagons that made western expansion and settlement work.

SpaceX has ripped the commercial launch market into pieces. They have already soaked up most of the satellite market for the payload classes they can launch. Just look at their launch manifest for the coming years, they have contracts from all over the world and loads of them.

Here's the number of satellites on the SpaceX manifest for upcoming years:2014: 82015:102016: 32017: 3

Here's the scheduled number of satellite/spacecraft launches for Roscosmos: 2014: 31 + 4 delayed from this year (doesn't include a long list of postponed missions)2015: 202016: 11

In both cases I've excluded resupply missions to the ISS and also excluded a couple of experimental Roscosmos missions. Any assertion that SpaceX has 'soaked up most of the satellite market' depends on a lot of fancy footwork to obscure the fact that RC will be putting at least four times as many commercial satellites into space. SpaceX has had a good start, and they're a useful addition to the options for getting into space. But they still lag far behind the major, state-controlled players in terms of their impact on the market. It's going to be many years before they get anywhere near 'ripping the commercial market into pieces'.

Yes, if you compare apples to cherries and grapes. I was talking about the payload classes the F9 is serving. Including Soyuz and Dnepr launches gives a different picture, but not a very useful one.

The reality is that there is no way to clearly split commercial launches from government launches simply because when a government entity pays a commercial company to do a job like take supplies to the ISS or put up a weather satellite, do you count it as a commercial enterprise or a government one?

Some of the recent Atlas 5 launches in the US are using Russian built engines. The engines were built by entities in Russian owned at least partially by their government, is that a commercial product or not?

SpaceX has ripped the commercial launch market into pieces. They have already soaked up most of the satellite market for the payload classes they can launch. Just look at their launch manifest for the coming years, they have contracts from all over the world and loads of them.

Here's the number of satellites on the SpaceX manifest for upcoming years:2014: 82015:102016: 32017: 3

Here's the scheduled number of satellite/spacecraft launches for Roscosmos: 2014: 31 + 4 delayed from this year (doesn't include a long list of postponed missions)2015: 202016: 11

In both cases I've excluded resupply missions to the ISS and also excluded a couple of experimental Roscosmos missions. Any assertion that SpaceX has 'soaked up most of the satellite market' depends on a lot of fancy footwork to obscure the fact that RC will be putting at least four times as many commercial satellites into space. SpaceX has had a good start, and they're a useful addition to the options for getting into space. But they still lag far behind the major, state-controlled players in terms of their impact on the market. It's going to be many years before they get anywhere near 'ripping the commercial market into pieces'.

Yes, if you compare apples to cherries and grapes. I was talking about the payload classes the F9 is serving. Including Soyuz and Dnepr launches gives a different picture, but not a very useful one.

Like I said: the fancy footwork is irrelevant and doesn't change the facts. SpaceX is only beginning to have any sort of impact on the commercial space market. In ten years' time it may well be a major force. But right now it's not.

It does not feel the same when space travel is just another commercial venture.

At the same time I love the fact that I can cheaply fly anywhere in the world within a day, it's not an event for the rich and famous where you dress up nicely for it.

NASA still puts satelittes up all the time and barely anyone bats and eyelid (the NSA does it all the time and barely anyone knows about it). But there are bigger steps to take. I'll be struggling to hold back a tear when we finally get a foot on Mars, but only because it represents the continuing of finding something new, the old becoming mundane simply marks the progress that's happening to get to those new things.

Yep. It's not the satellite owner or the rocket manufacturer/operator that makes the call. It's the insurance company that is really in charge. Chain o' command is Insurer>Payload owner>launcher. If the insurer says stop you stop or you don't get paid to replace the $700M satellite that might blow up if you have an anomaly.